Image of the Zeiss Touit prototype lens (not the new 16-70mm lens!)
–
And finally we will get our first high quality zoom for the NEX system. Sony will launch the new Zeiss 16-70mm f/4.0 E-mount lens by End of August (likely August 29)! It will be unveiled along the new NEX-5T camera. This is a completely different lens than the 16-80mm Zeiss A-mount version (here at Amazon). But the price will be more or less similar (around $1,000).
One more NEX-FF thing: Still working on the camera specs. But I was able to get lens info from one source. I am now trying to double check the info I got. If it’s true than the lenses are GREAT! And that is not me being Sony fanboy or over emotional. Stay tuned on SAR!
———–
Support: I upgraded my server plan to be able to avoid any blackout during the next intense weeks. I would be glad if you can help me to cover these extra costs with a small donation. Thanks!
———Message to sources: You can send me more info anonymously by using the contact form you see on the very right of your browser. You can also contact me directly at sonyalpharumors@gmail.com.
For readers: Subscribe the RSS feed (Click here) and Twitter (Click here) stream and the Facebook fan page (Click here) in order to not miss any news!
——–
Reminder (SR = Sonyrumor):
SR1=probably fake rumor
SR2=rumor from unknown sources
SR3=50% chance it is correct
SR4=rumor from known sources
SR5=almost certainly correct!
215 Responses
No 2.8 and no OSS. I’ll pass on this one 🙂 Waiting for 50-150 info
yahhhn! you don’t need OSS in lens anymore as future models of Nex cameras are going to have 5-axis in-body stabilizer. Another thing, 16-70 f/4 constant Zeiss will be as good as f2.8 variable one for sure.
IF the future NEXes have IBIS. This has yet to be confirmed.
I hope this is a sign that they do. I mean, even if Zeiss doesn’t use OSS on their lenses, I think that if Sony didn’t have something up their sleeve, they’d make an OSS zoom themselves and leave Zeiss for primes.
Either way Zeiss won’t be optically stabilized.
Umm…Sony is the one that designs and makes the “Zeiss” lens. The only contractual requirement to have a Sony Zeiss lens is that the quality control parameters meet with the standards of Zeiss. Zeiss, the german optics company, does not make any lens for Sony Cameras nor do they determine what lens to come out with.
That’s not what I understand with the Touits. The 12 and 32 mm Touits I believe are designed by and produced by Zeiss.
No. The lens train and optical design is by Zeiss and AF mechanism and motor is produced by Sony. That is why ZA lenses have TWO serial numbers – a Zeiss on e on the optical train and a Sony one on the lens body.
Depressing that people still make mistakes about this.
The Zeiss Touit lenses are also available for Fuji X cameras. They are not Sony lenses.
well, I don’t have FUTURE NEX – I’ve got one without ibis; And there IS a difference between 2.8 and 4 – 70mm 2.8 for portrait – why not (of course not serious); 4.0 – NO
If you are serious about portraiture, then use a prime lens.
You can have f/2.8 OR zoom range, but not both if you want to keep size down. Just look at the size of the A-mount 16-50mm f/2.8, imagine it had 20mm more reach, and tell me you would happily attach it to an NEX body.
I’m quite happy with it being f/4. The zoom range is quite versatile, and if I want wide aperture I’ll attach a prime.
“If you are serious about portraiture, then use a prime lens.” – that’s why I wrote “not serious”; but if this ZEISS is to be universal zoom, I’d love to have portrait option – it’ll be still possible with these specs but – not very spectacular
Here’s a portrait I took yesterday, with my CZ 24-70. Is it not serious enough for you?
http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/33560503
Also, a portrait done with my 70-200 G lens yesterday. Is it just a joke? http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/33560564
@Rob
The Lotus Eater was right. Your portrate on 24-70 is not better then 50/1.8 OSS will do. Ganerally 50/1.8 OSS much better portrate lens that 24-70 on 70mm. And the second one I am not comenting. You are filming models just a second after they taking off bras? No coments. If you are not understanding why this is not beautiful, how can you understand why 50/1.8 OSS is giving mush more beautiful out of focus area then 24-70 on FF. You just not accurate even in your work.
I’ve seen far better to be absolutely honest, Rob. Sorry.
I did not suggest that portraits could not be done on a quality zoom lens, but I’d much rather use a ZA 85/1.4 than a 24-70mm or 70-200mm G. Neither are exactly the king of bokeh, which is an important element of portraiture.
@bas – the second shot was a couple hours in to the shoot. She’s just very impressionable. I won’t use a 50 mm for portraits because of the perspective, and you should know why seeing as you’re such an expert.
@Rob
As you know 50/1.8 OSS is a croped lens and will become 75mm FF equivalent. There are a lot of work done to compare how hard the perspective hurts by using A700 + 50/1.8 against A850 + 85/2.8. And the result was that yes 85/2.8 on A850 prefered then 75mm equivalent, but 75mm is not blocking issue and even not critical. You giving the example on 70mm, about what better perspective your are talking? Is it needed to be expert to recognise that? Not 85/1.4ZA or Minolta 85/1.4, even 85/2.8 was better choice, but you are choising 70mm and zoom with not the best bokeh(compared to … lets take Minolta 28-70/2.8) and speaking about perspective on 70mm against 75mm equivalent? Sorry. I am defenetly not an expert in comparation to you. I am only know to count.
Not trying to get in the middle of this argument but 50mm on a cropped sensor is 75mm equivalent in terms of the field of view only. The “perspective” will still be the one of 50mm lens, correct?
AK-77, no perspective does not depend on focal length (so neither 50mm or 75mm), it depends on the distance between camera and subject. Next, focal length and sensor size will determine what part of the subject is going to be in your photo (as opposed to what’s outside the crop).
to make a great potrait photos not about just bokeh, but many factor include, like concept, composition, lighting, and many more. i believe we can create good photo potrait with zoom lens, cz 24-70mm is great lens and really versatile :))
@RVN
We talked about technical part and not about hands of the photografer that always mandatory. And in this point of view, for the close, face portrate – no, 24-70 is not the best choice and not only because of bokeh quality.
It should at least be 2.8-4, or better,2.8 constant. From what we see here it should be another half frame, so even at a constant 2.8 it would be much smaller than the current Zeiss, and maybe finally worth the price its asking.
16-70/4 half frame, another overpriced modern Zeiss. Since I have a Speed Booster, at this price it’d be crazy for me not to get one of these instead. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Contax-Zeiss-Vario-Sonnar-T-35-135mm-F-3-3-4-5-Lens-/221267119081?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item33848c4be9
Would you be happy with a software steadyshot instead of IBIS where it takes a few shots determines the movement and removes it? It would also only be available for jpeg and no video.
Bof bof !!! not such a good news.. I’ll wait for the 50-150 too
As soon as 50-150 will anyway be big, I really hope it can be a 2.8 lens.
$1,000.00 is way to expensive for a cropped sensor lense.
sony prices are get more and more high each announcement.
You really think that £1k is too expensive for a Zeiss f4 zoom?
How much was the A mount 16-80mm variable aperture at launch and that was years ago!
The SAL1680 Zeiss was a joke. Shoddy build quality and no SSM.
Irrelevant.
I don’t consider the price of this Zeiss constant f4 prohibitive when it is comparable to the launch price of the variable aperture 16-80.
Yeah, $1000 for this Zeiss cropped 16-70 f/4 is alot. I’m pretty sure the majority of Sony NEX users would rather prefer a slightly bigger and cheaper 16-50/2.8 for $600. Ridiculous.
Then again, those “majority” (or so you say) would be just as delusional as you to think that the 16-50/2.8 would only be slightly bigger. Why don’t you just buy the A-mount one and an adapter?
Not everybody , I much prefer f4
+1
Me too. Compactness and high IQ is more important than large aperture.
The full frame Sony Zeiss 24-70 is $2000, usable on nex with adaptor.
Is there OSS in this lens?
Wait, never mind, I just remembered Zeiss doesn’t put in image stabilization in their lenses since they believe it affect optical quality somehow.
This Zeiss branded Sony lens. It will have OSS
You don’t know that at all. As far as I know, there has never been an interchangeable Zeiss branded Sony lens with OSS before now. Zeiss do not like to compromise optical performance in order to accommodate OSS, so we will likely find that this lens does not offer it, unless they have changed their policy.
This not a Zeiss lens. It’s a Sony lens with Zeiss branding. RX100 lens is Zeiss branded and has OS
That’s true, but I specifically stated “interchangeable” lenses. But anyway, I hope you are right.
Sure, it’s a Zeiss lens. It says that in the article.
Hi Maria – do you know if this is a Zeiss lens like the Touits, or a Zeiss design licensed for Sony like the 24mm Nex?
I wonder if there will ever be a zoom lens for Nex FF. Everbody seems to be so enthusiastic about primes … 🙂
Stefan, I think according to the rumors there’s suppose to be zoom lens for the NEX FF along with a prime lens at launch.
It’s Zeiss so it carries that premium. Always.
It may very well be the best performing Zoom for E mount so people will gauge whether that performance is worth the price.
If I had a use for this focal length and aperture, and if it was the best E mount zoom, I would buy no questions.
To each their own.
No F1.4…I’ll pass.
Just being ironic to some on this forum 🙂
What!? No, f/0.7 Zeiss zoom? I’ll pass!
Well, 4.0 IS a bit slow for an APS-C zoom. APS-C can be a stop faster than FF-ones. Proven by Sigma: if they can build a 1.8 zoom, Zeiss could at least build a 2.8 one.
What Sigma? 20-70 F2.0 was a fake lens and false rumor.
Sigma F1.8 lens is 18-35. This is 16-70. Huge difference
Harv, that Sigma lens was 18-35mm and ended up pretty big.
But, as Amir says, there is a big difference between 18-35mm and 16-70mm. You can’t defy physics.
If a 24-105 FF can be built at 3.5/4.5 Zeiss should be able to build a 16-70 APS-C at 2.4/3.5. You could achieve that length and speed with a Speed booster, right?
Not that I really care: I rarely use zoom lenses. 🙂
they can build it.
it will be a lot bigger, heavier and more expensive.
then people will complain about the price (more than they are now). rather than satisfying the complaints of all the people who are not even going to buy this lens i’d rather see this compromise
I’m glad this isn’t a fast f1.8 zoom like the new Sigma… otherwise I would have had to somehow come up with a $1000!
Sony will launch a Zeiss lens ? I wonder what Zeiss will be doing …
Well Zeiss won’t be manufacturing it anyway.
Well, there is not that much Zeiss in the Zeiss lenses sold by Sony. There is Zeiss brand all over for sure. Then there is the optical design. The mechanical design is done by Sony apparently. Note that Zeiss has just introduced the new design style for theeir own lenses – kind of fluted shape reminding me of a beer glass. The Sony Zeiss lenses are manufactured by Sony manufacturing contractors. Sony markets, sells and services the lenses under Sony symbol. This lens will be called SEL2470F40Z most likely. Sony just pays Zeiss royalties for the use of the optical design and brand.
Made in China ? I hope not. Zeiss tried that with the 16-80 and gave up.
You are funny person. Why would a 16-70 lens be named SEL2470F40Z?
Sorry. My mistake. I meant: SEL1670F40Z
I guess you never used one. The optics are designed by Zeiss and have a Zeiss serial number on the optical train. See my post above. They also have T* coating which is just about the best in the business and gives brilliant local contrast – something you can see when you shoot with the lenses.
Super fast lens as always! 😀
No OSS in Touit ZESS lens because the next NEX is stabilazed ? If that’s cool !
Otherwise the opening is very good and the range (24-105 like canon) too!
“No OSS in Touit ZESS lens because the next NEX is stabilazed ?”
I don’t think that was the reason at all – it was simply Zeiss being Zeiss. Plus you don’t really need OSS in a 12mm or 32mm lens.
no OSS….. no BUY 🙂
what abt the G zoom ?? i don’t have a problem with an expensive f4 lens from zeiss( if the quality is indeed good) but can’t live without OSS.
first rumor: 16-80mm f/2,8-f/4
second rumor: 16-70mm f/2,8-f/4
third rumor : second rumor: 16-70mm f/4
what is next: 16-50mm f/4,5?
18-55 F3.5-5.6 – standard Canikon plastic kit lens. (:-))
Never saw such rumors…
The only rumor was 16mm-xxmm high quality zoom.
All the supposed rumors and reported apertures in your post are based on forum members posts and guess…
Otherwise… Just show us the links of that rumors!
I remember f2.8 being mentioned by admin as well. not that I blame him. rumours are hardly ever 100% correct.
Again show the links to the posts. You can’t judge other people based on nothing…
I could be confusing things with the upcoming g lens. was that expected to be a 2.8?
Hehe 🙂 time will tell.
Hoping that the NEX FF lens is not a 50 1.4 because if it’s as sharp as 35 2.0 on RX1, I would have a really hard time choosing between it and my Summilux 50 ASPH and/or APO Summicron 😉
This is ridiculous. A 1000$ f4 zoom is not what we have been waiting for, Zeiss or not. Fanboys will gobble this up and try to laugh it off over your avarage non commited consumer who looks at Fuji and is overthrown. So 18-55 isnt 16-70, we know, but this is more than just another lens, this is policy. Sony has proven yet again its remarkable ablity to overlook market demands and customer commitment. Getting a 16-70 f4 Zeiss for 1000$ implies faster zooms are out as of now and if ever, not for under 1000$.I say best of luck to those who want to buy into the reality of this system, but the truth is its not looking good.
+1
The point is you don’t need f/2,8 because you can up the iso setting in all Sony camera’s that were introduced in recent years. It simply isn’t an issue anymore.
what about dof? and the benefit of better sensor doesn’t necessarily mean shooting at smaller apertures – what about the benefit of shooting in even dimmer light? with a speedier lens, you can always do more with any given sensor. not that I think f4 is such a bad idea. it could be useful indeed if they get it right.
The point is a 1000$ f4 zoom is overpriced. You can get better for cheaper. That’s the point really.
Not a bad mid-level kit lens if small and light, but $1000? Is it at least weather-sealed?
Seeing as no NEX body is weather sealed, having a weather sealed lens does you no good.
Well, seems NEX developed two price ranges: Those lenses for 24MP APS-C with NEX-7 and those lenses for all lower density sensors. There’ll be a third price range soon for the FullFrame-NEX and of course it’s important for E-Mount to shine on extremely advanced levels, but Sony should not forget for the mass E-Mount adaption it does not look nicely to get outperformed by comparatively cheap Sigma lenses…
I prefer to see a 16-50 f2.8 to go with the 50-150 f2.8
f4,, really zeiss??? please sigma please come with a nex zoom lens f2.8!
+1000
+10000
really? 1k for a F4 DT lens? who would buy these?
your avarage “what no 0.3f??” fanboy 🙂
Who would buy it? Maybe people who don’t think that wide apertures are a pre-requisite of the ability to take a decent photograph, perhaps?
Don’t cry when sigma come up with a 1.8f and way sharper and cheaper lens. What a Zeiss fanboy
You stupid.
Sigma is 18-35f1.8
Zeiss 16-70F4.0
focal length is different.
Buy it twice.
And sigma noway release 16-70mm F1.8, I bet.
Zeiss fanboy? Who?
When Sigma come up with an f/1.8 16-70mm for NEX, be sure to have your crane ready.
Nice, you made me smile 🙂
It’s I M P O S S I B L E . Remember to your head.
Fujifilm 18-55 f2.8-4, stabilized, 700$.
Zeiss 16-70 f4 , no stab. ,1000$.
There is no proof yet the lens is not stabilized. This is not Zeiss lens like Touit. It’s Sony’s lens with Zeiss branding.
How many Zeiss branded Sony lenses do you know of that have OSS?
RX100 lens is one that has OSS
Bla bla! All other Zeiss branded Sony lenses where for A-mount…
if rumors are true, cameras will have IBIS so it would be zeiss and stabilized.
It is a bit slow but hopefully the speed means it is very compact while still being very sharp wide open.
“wide open” ^^
This made me smile. 😀
This reminds me of an excellent comment on DPreview, titled “The forums will hate it”.
I’ve seen people say “Why you no f/4 Sonee? It was purrfect, Minolta knew” & “A constant f/4 zoom would be a good ratio of size, weight and speed for NEX” & “f/2,8 is too slow for anything” & “An f/2,8 14-105 zoom would be great” & “Yeah, nice anchor on your tiny NEX there” and the summary is that whatever is declared, the forums will hate it.
I think 16-70 is a very nice every-day zoom range and f/4 a promise that it won’t totally kill the portability of a NEX..provided that it’s sharp at f/4 at 70mm, unlike the “beercan”.
You are right. The focal range is nice – 24-105 equivalent on full frame. And we need bright lenses less and less with increasing ISOs available with modern sensors.
If this lens will be sharp fully open across the whole frame and for all focal lengths then this would be a perfect lens for NEX and well worth the $1,000. It all depends on the if (:-).
“NEX line is NOT full frame” its cropped!
man when Fuji comes out with a full frame Body
and if the current lenses they have can be used
sony will be in trouble for sure…
They definitely can be used… just in cropped mode. Why would you want those somewhat soft corners right now (at WO) to be even worse? Seriously, people speak when they don’t think carefully.
f/4.0 ???
oh , cooommmmmeeeeeeeee on !!!!
Why? Were you expecting 16-70 F2.8 lens? If you were, then you need to check your head.
maybe we should do it together , do u agree with me !
I love your politeness, and clever answer 🙂
Sounds great, still we have the RX100’s for sale in the meantime looking forward to this review- http://photographic-central.blogspot.com/2013/08/sony-cybershot-rx100-ii-in-for-review.html
yeah $1,000 for an F4 lens just because it is Zeiss. If it was any other company the regular Zeiss fanboys will be ripping the company apart.
No way I will pay that money for such a lens with no stability to make it worst.
FYI – check the price of the Alpha SAL1680Z which is f/3.5-4.5
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/463923-REG/Sony_SAL1680Z_SAL_1680Z_16_80mm_f_3_5_4_5_Carl.html
OMG, it sells for 1000$. Not sure why anyone is surprised by the possibility of this lens being 1000$. Find me a zeiss lens that sells much cheaper than 1000$ for any mount? That being said, I would not buy any lens at this price. Way out of my budget as a hobby, but it’s nice to have more choice.
Constant f/4.0? On wide angle even RX-100 will have better low light performance than NEX with this lens 🙂
The difference between F1.8 and F4 is just slightly more than 1 stop. Nex is more than one stop better than RX100 at low-light, so no you are wrong. And of course at telephoto this blows the RX100
The difference between F1.8 and F4 is 2 1/3 stops:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number
Nex is not 2 1/3 stops better than RX100.
F1.8 to F4 is 2 and 1/3 stops
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Bp5Q1dJ7JvM/TC96UHaZLZI/AAAAAAAAAI0/HxJUmkFXhoA/s1600/FstopChart.jpeg
Huh? Stops are 1.0 > 1.4 > 2.0 > 2.8 > 4.0 > 5.6
The difference is 2 1/3 stops between 1.8 and 4. The RX100 is no constant f/1.8, but at the wide end, the Rx100 is better especially with 5cm MFD from the sensor.
But then if you’re worried about low light, any NEX will have better high ISO ability to compensate, so that 2 1/3 stops is effectively reduced somewhat.
RX-100 is a 28mm FOV at wide angle, this lens will be 24mm which is a significant difference. And how often do you use f/1.8 at wide angle? At 50mm you are at f/3.5 on the RX-100 so the speed advantage drops off pretty fast.
If you have to use a zoom then f4 sounds great and it will keep the camera + lens combination at a reasonable size. Zooms aren’t fast. So, if Zeiss focus on color/contrast and resolution it will be very interesting to see the results.
My SEL18200 starts at f3.5 and I am sure at 70mm is it not much behind f4. It is very sharp, has OSS, costs almost only half the price and goes until 200mm. So, why should I buy the Zeiss f4?
Because your 18-200 is big, havy and good but far from perfect. Just one of the best compromises on the market but still compromise.
SEL18200 is at F5.6 at 70mm, full one stop slower, and of course this lens goes to 16mm, will be smaller, lighter, and sharper
Chromatic aberrations, distortions, corner sharpness, contrast, color, build quality, resell value? Enough reasons?
Not sure the difference will be this huge !!!!
The sel18-200 is a very good versatile lens. maybe the Zeiss will be sharper but not fast enough and with no OSS… so it will near to be impossible to use it on low light over 50mm on my Nex 7 !
I don’t find this lens so interesting and it will be really expensive !
I hope a G high quality lens, something like 16-50 2.8 OSS would be more interesting !
You only should if you want much sharper, contrasty, colourful, clearer pictures in 16-70mm range. Ah probably it’s gonna weight less and be smaller as well 😉
We’ll see about the IQ 🙂 But thanks for all these reasons. If the IQ is a lot better, it may replace my 18200 as most used lens.
Obviously, you don’t need to.
Excuse me but the SEL18200 is $895 at B&H.
die forever… another A mount system for Nex… less lens but always refresh the body with nothing….
complaining about the lack of lenses on the rumor that more lenses are coming… what is this
F4.0 is good enough for my primary use, landscape shooting.
But I am waiting to see what the rumored FF NEX will be.
If you shoot landscape you’ll nerver need full frame over a NEX.. My opinion
Yeah, and you’re entitled to it. Ansel Adams wouldn’t agree, to name one. I wouldn’t either 🙂
But of course, brilliant landscape pictures could be taken with even a Nokia VGA-cam by the right photographer. I wouldn’t get any further than an average picture, even with a 8×10 camera…
what do you want in landscape?
more DOF? > smaller sensor better
more dynamic range? > NEX-7 still kills most Full-Frame for much lower price
Resolution? > NEX-7 should have enough
High ISO? > no need for landscapes, tripod
Lenses? > Zeiss 12, 24, 32 and for sure 16-70 on NEX are all as sharp as the Full-Frame ones
weight? > I’d take a NEX + 4 primes over a FF DSLR and 1 good zoom and still have less weight
Full-frame is overrated in my opinion, maybe a bit better for portrait in studios and handheld lowlight, thats’s it
DOF? can you go to f64 on a wide angle in a cropped sensor?
Obviously, you are not a serious landscape shooter. The gain in DOF is not as significant as you think when a situation calls for it. And it’s almost a guarantee that the distortion of the equivalent focal would be much higher (the Fuji 14 is the only exception). All of the current mirrorless WA lenses couldn’t even compete with the like of Zeiss 21, Canon 17 and 24 TSE at any aperture.
The A99 has noticeable better DR and noise profile to me. I know since I have shot with both. And by the way, I guess you’re not familiar with wide field astrophotography; good ISO is a big welcome.
Weight is a good argument, but depending on the purpose you pick the right horse.
It’s not to say that APS-C is clearly inferior, but to say it’s clearly better choice is just absurd.
When I still thought I was a photographer, I used to use Kodak Technical Pan for land- and streetscapes. On FF equivalent to more than 50 Megapixels. And Ansel Adams’s landscapes have far more than that resolution. So, yeah, a FF cam with more than 24 Mp would be welcome, or, to say it in forumlingo: I desperately NEED more than APS-C 🙂 🙂 🙂
Now, let me see: It’s $599 for a SpeedBooster and $1200 for a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC for Canon at Adorama/BnH.
That gives me an F/2.0 24-70mm stabilised lens for $1800.00. So even if the current AF is slug-slow, if one can live with manual focus and peaking it’s so much better for 1/3-length-plus portraits….better still, get the new Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 with VC for $200 more and be done.
Just a thought.
Sorry, what’s your point? Are you comparing this new Zeiss lens to a much more expensive and much bigger solution?
what about autofocus?
f4 is a perfect balance of weight/size and speed. Don’t expect huge lenses for the compact Nex system. Want faster lenses? Use Alpha lenses with an adapter.
Stop whining.
So getting GX7/OMD + 12-35 f/2.8 is basically the same (DoF / ISO performance) as getting NEX + 16-70 f/4, except the former has IBIS and the later has more reach…..
No because m43 small sensor, image quality lags behind APS-c size Nex camera’s.
A “great” lens in my mind is my 35mm 1.4 contax distagon or the 21mm f2.8 distagon (the biogon is great as well). Is Zeiss putting out a 35/1.4 distagon or perhaps a 100/2 or something similar? I’d be careful throwing around great 😉 We might be a little jaded with the E-mount lens choices but most of us still remember what “great” glass is from other mounts (even A-mount).
In my mind it is simpler to be great when the cost is in thousands of dollars. 50/1.8 OSS is great lens that costs 300$. This is a great lens. Yes Sigma 18-35 also but it is 800g of glass. So it can’t be compared to the small and light E-mount lenses.
Kranief… why play with any of that… sigma just put out a f/1.8 zoom which is apparently fantastic! I feel like speed booster was a temp solution for those special prime lenses and for people who wanted NEX-size with the FF-look. Once the FF NEX comes out, I think the speedbooster market will shrink quite a bit.
The Sigma f1.8 does sound really nice but it is huge! It is a very big lens with a very narrow zoom range. For some people with DSLRs that’s fine and it would be awesome if Sony/Zeiss could somehow bend the laws of physics and fit all that into a more compact package but in the end the NEX system is a balance of size, weight, and speed. In a perfect world there would be a native high-speed option for those willing to compromise on weight and size. In the meantime the speed booster is actually the smallest adapter available and the Tamron is not a bad idea.
Just curious: do the people who post here ever buy anything other than the cheap Sigma lenses when they are on sale? All I ever read in the comments about lenses is that they are “too expensive” and “too slow” — usually both.
Well I’m usually complaining about too slow… sure I wouldn’t mind if they were cheaper but I don’t mind paying for really good glass (mind you I’m thinking Zeiss ZF/ZE prices, NOT the mind-bending prices of Leica). If Sony/Zeiss wants to charge ~$1.2-1.5K for a lens then that’s not automatically a deal killer as long as that lens is for example, a 35mm f1.4 distagon, with its very unique/beautiful rendering, AF and a relatively compact size (think contax lens and not the ZF monster). They can also release a 35mm f2.8 at ~6-700$ for the more price-consious consumer. i think the fact that there isn’t a large variety of native glass available make each new offering more vulnerable to criticism since there will never be a single lens that will please everyone.
i complain that its a bit too expensive but i’m planning on buying a FF NEX anyway, i already have lots of NEX lenses/cameras including NEX 5n, 5R, and 6 (and RX1), all within the first 6 months of their respective releases. also NEX 50 f1.8, 30 macro, 16 prime + fisheye and ultrawide, 18-55, tamron 18-200 and previously 19+30 sigma and 16-50 pz.
i use to complain that they were too expensive when i was a student, but now I have a job and im living at home money isn’t an issue for me (that being said, i’m not actually going to WASTE money) so i can spend as i like (within reason) while saving up for a house.
many people who complain about things being too expensive might be people who do have a family, or have bills to pay, and photography isn’t more than a hobby for them, that or they enjoy the attention they get from foot stomping on the internet when things don’t go their way
the people who complain that its not fast enough are usually people who spend more time reading about things in the internet and comparing stuff rather than actually going out to take photos, they might have the basic understanding of photography but get a bigger kick owning a f0.7 lens rather than using it or are just bokeh-whores which shoot everything at f1.4 and always look at how shallow the DoF is (that use to be like me xD).
in the end, its a lot easier to make a fuss on the internet than it is actually going out and use your camera
f4? LOL. Thats 24-60 f5.6 on full frame. Pretty lame…
This is not FF. It must be universal zoom. 24-105 on FF, not 24-60. And f4 is f4 on FF, crop or 4/3. Only depth of feild is changing.
On fullframe terms, it’d be a 24-105mm. Not bad, actually.
I rather see this 16-70mm F4 than another 16-50 incarnation (even if it was a 16-50mm F2.8).
Only for DOF it would be f5.6. For shuttertime it is f4.0.
This is not a portrate lens so f4.0 is ok I think.
If only Sony also release the rumored 85mm…
I waiting for /2.8 vario-sonnar on NEX
It can be not so small and not so cheap
16-70/2.8-3.5 SSM ZA for $1500 will be ok
we had enough bad cheap dark zooms on nex, we need high quality product
I hope Sony will never do such a stupid thing.
Good news. I won’t be tempted to switch from m4/3 and can finally buy 12-35 f/2.8 with clear conscience 😉
P.S. Don’t mean that this will be worse, just not significantly better for me to switch. I’m sure it’ll be a great addition for nex owners.
great, enjoy your 12-35mm 😀
Some people will never be happy, but if I could afford a constant 16-70mm f4 lens, then I’d be happy to own one. A 16-70 f2.8 would, in all probablility, larger than the current 16-50mm f2.8 A mount lens. Hopefully, the 16-70mm f4 would be smaller. A nice range, and if it is a high quality lens, this should be something that most people should welcome. Besides, if Sony actually release an 85mm f1.8 lens, then they’ll have a 35, 50, 85 1.8 cadre of lenses to select from. Perhaps a 70mm f1.8 would be better for APS-C, but between the primes and this new zoom lens, Sony is doing quite a bit to strenghten the position of the NEX line for future expansion. Change is certianly coming. It may be a tad slow for some, but it does appear that Sony is serious about supporting both A and E mount users. And not just for the still photography, but video applications as well.
Yes, c’mon Sony, bring out that 85mm 1.8!!!
The Sony Zeiss 16-35mm + 24-70mm combo costs $4000. For that the lenses are full frame and 2.8 but also large, pretty weighty and it takes two lenses for the same coverage.
This lens could be great if the speed sacrifice means it will be highly portable (I personally prefer smaller to lighter). If so it could be a great default lens to always have on the camera and supplement with a fast prime like a 50 or 85mm 1.4 for portraits and low light stuff.
if its as good as my 16-80z or better i ll be looking at it. the fixed f4 is upgrade to me its a dam good walkaround lens if i want longer i put a different lens on if i want fastr i get a different lens out of the bag.
this is an interchange lens system buy the glass you need for your work (or fun)
BTW if the lens is only 1k$ i ll be shocked im thinking more like 1200$
its always nice to see people who are more full of common sense than the usual “yap yap yap” about how something is not something enough
Sony nex is growing up to be a beautiful system. Possible the best with fuji on their side. Go sony.
Boy, everybody is poo-poo’ing this lens, but if it has corner-to-corner sharpness, I am all for it! Finally a mid-range zoom for NEX that doesn’t suck balls and also starts at 24mm FF equivilent.
I rather have a good quality lens without the zeiss badge on it, performing equally and selling for $600…
That price is a joke.
please tell me the prime for FF nex is going to be 45mm f2.0 contax g design.. the 35mm f2.8 mentioned before sounds horrible 🙁
Awesome!
Effectively a 24-105/F4 …it probably wont have OSS so I guess the next 7 will have IBIS…
A big ugly FF Canon L 24-105 costs $1150 and the Zeiss 16-80/3.5-4.5 is around $1000, so I guess $1000 for an internally focussing, relatively compact and nicely designed E-mount 16-70 constant aperture zoom is ok, although expensive.
I will definitely buy it as a kit with NEX-7 successor with IBIS
24-105 L optically piece of crap.
“Canon’s 24-105 f4 L IS optically piece of crap”? You must be joking. Unless you tested a bad copy, and sure there are such. Albeit the risk of getting a bad 24-105L copy is, by my personal experience with about a dozen amongst myself and friends over the years, much lower than with any Sony SEL lens.
One may be, but not three on 50D, 7D and 5DmII. All three piece of crap comparing to the price of this lens when selling as stand alone. All three users was totally sure that it is a great lens. It is not my problem that piople calling piece of crap – great. It is thier understanding of greatness. 24-105 is one of the worst not only L lenses but such an AF zooms at all. There is two, no three good things in it: build quality, stab, and diapason. Optically, old 28-135/4-4.5 from Minolta making greek salad from this L. Every copy, not a chosen one.
True, Canon 24-105L has bad reputation.
+1, i’ve never really liked or was impressed with the 24-105L, but it doesn’t concern me anymore as i’m not shooting with Canon anymore 😀 other people’s problem
It’s not up to the usual L standard, especially on a high pixel density crop sensor.
Positively mushy, even at the center…You could get those mint on some second-hand markets for less than $600, people buy the kit then get pissed off by the IQ.
No. For all practical purposes, it comparable to a 24-105/F5.6, not F4.
It has the same DOF as an F5.6 on a full frame sensor.
It catches the same amount of light as an F5.6 on a full frame sensor.
And due to its smaller pixels, an APS-C sensor at, for example, ISO100 will give you about the same quality (DR, noise) as a full-frame sensor (of the same technology) at ISO200.
$1000 is very expensive compare with fuji’s 18-55 2.8-4.
This small difference in 2mm between 16 and 18 is a lot of work and cost to make tham good, much more than additional 55-70.
Another lens that could very well be designed only to prove that mirrorless, all considered, is still far away from being able to compete with existing DSLR systems, while still offering much less value for money, too.
~$1000 for 16-70mm f/4.0 + ~$1000 for NEX-7 successor body, I can get a 6D full frame with 24-105L kit. Decisions, decisions. 🙂
For 2K? May be used a little. Camera with good ISO, very good central point AF, not very good initial output colors and bad lens in addition? And all this havy and big? Don’t know.
Brand new, not used. In USA, you can easily get a deal on 6D kit for $2000, see Slickdeals. The 24-105L is a great zoom lens, A-mount has nothing similar. Sony is a master of bodies and sensors, but they can still learn from Canon and Nikon on how to make good lens. No idea on what you mean by “colors”, try shooting in RAW.
May be, may be that the prices on it already decreased so much. But about 24-105L if is so graet, why 20 years old lens from Minolta on A900 so much better? Why Canon 7D with 15-85 on landscape batter then 5DmII with 24-105? Why the ouwners of %dmII that not lying, writing on forums that actually NEX-5N with 18-55 is on par with 5DmII with 24-105L(from 18 to 55 of cause) when you don’t need DOF and ISO more then 800 and they so surprised? Canon have many great lenses but not that and I am hope that Sony will not produce ones more that kind of crap like Sony/Minolta 24-105/3.5-4.5 that have almost the same performance but without stab and built quality. But Sony removed it from the production and for Canon users it is still great lens. Canon shit 50/1.8 is also great lens for many. But it is worst 50mm AF lens in all systems, even for less then 100$ price. And give me a breake. Canon have two bodys that producing initially great colors – 5D(first version not II) and 1DX that it. It is needed to use native RAW converter in order to recognise that fact. PS wrokaround it is you personal skills and nothing telling about camera work.
6D is a flawed camera. Bad AF performance, GPS always on, battery life less than 4 days, 20mp only, video implemented badly, no image stabilization.
It’s a difficult comparison to make without knowing what the successor is like unless you prefer a traditional dSLR.
sadly, I don’t think this lens to be much more interesting than the Sel18-200mm.. F4 is just too slow ! And without OSS is just impossible to use with my Nex-5 and my Nex-7
Andrea have u some info about the first high quality G lens that was on the first roadmap ? I expecte more from this lens.
Thanks
Don’t forget to add in the price of the winch and truss required to hold it up!!!
f/4.0 is too slow. Make it f/2.8 constant aperture. It’ll be a larger and more expensive lens, but so what. You get what you pay for, and Zeiss should always be pushing the envelope.
An APS-C 16-70 f2.8 would unfortunately be large and heavy. It would be comparable to a full-frame 24-105, and Canon’s weights 670g.
I tried a Sony SEL 18-200 (the first version) on a NEX-6 for several weeks, which weights 524g: As a standard zoom, carrying it on the camera all day, it is unbalanced and inconvenient on the small NEX body. Just too large and a bit too heavy. The key selling point of the NEX line is low size and weight. That does not mean that there could not be some heavier and larger lenses – there is no way to make a good tele really small and leightweight -, but one would probably use such only part-time.
An APS-C 16-70 f2.8-4.0 might be nice and doable at << 500g. But well, _if_ (and only then) it is sharp wide open, than even a APS-C 16-70 f4 might just make my list.
BTW, optically the SEL 18-200 wasn't bad from wideangle to medium tele (see http://jour.zenfolio.com/p92069040) – after it had been adjusted by Sony's service, out of the box it had been noticable decentered. But then, sure not as good as the Canon 24-105L in its range, and the longer tele was there but not convincing. Bottom line, I decided that my NEX adventures would have to wait until a good standard zoom comes by.
I’m sure we’d all want a 16-70 f2.8, but why not have a 16-70 f4 first? an f2.8 5x zoom will be big and heavy, for someone who needs a more versatile lens. But an f4 option will be an excellent travel and even studio lens.
At f4 I am thinking the lens should perform very well wide open. If the quality is mind blowing then I guess 1000 is not so much. The 24mm is more than that and I am sure the zoom will be more versatile for many people. F4 is a good balance but this would have been much better if it were for the NEX-FULL FRAME.
Yeah. All this new technology, and all you photo nerds will have the same average at best photos. Spend more time practicing and improving your skills than worrying about ibis blah blah blah. Amateurs.
it come too late, waiting for Nex-FF now
for aps-c, join Fuji X
Well, to _me_ it sounds like the Goldilocks of lenses! The Zeiss brand and $1000 price tag gives hope that this is optically a (very) good lens. Its f/4 aperture should allow a compact format, it would be awesome if the rumor of 68mm wide x 62mm long when closed and 302 grams would turn out to be correct.
The one _big_ hesitation I have is the (lack of) image stabilization. If it has IS then I won’t even bother to tie my shoelaces when this lens comes available and hurry to a shop to buy it with a NEX-3N (yes, that cheap 3N: lightweight, better battery life, chargeable through USB, tiltable screen) to make my dream travel setup.
Without IS I will not buy it. I may wait for a NEX with IBIS to arrive and buy it then, or end up buying into the Fuji X system and forget about Sony.
It wouldn’t surprise me if it got introduced with a NEX body with IBIS, maybe the NEX-7 successor.
I don’t care about fast apertures and OSS but I though this would be a Sony branded lens. Wonder if we’ll ever see a decent E-mount zoom without Zeiss tax on it.
A more affordable step up zoom from the kit lens would have filled a much larger gap in the lineup than this.
Btw. I remember how everyone was making fun of Leica doing 3.5-6.3 on their mini M or whatever it was. Just saying.
for all the 2.8f must havers mayeb a limited run of 20 should be made and they can cost 2k$ and then we see who “has to have” the fast zoom
just looked at some specs and it seems the sigma 17-70 is 79x83mm and the 16-80z is 72×83 while the “huge” 18-200 oss sony is 76×99 and looks olmost jokingly big on the NEX line
a fixed f2.8f might well need to be 85x90mm in size
No one “has to have” anything. It’s all about getting the right product for the right price. f4 zoom isn’t a bad idea; I think it could become a decent medium kit lens. But when a real fast zoom doesn’t yet exist, putting this out for 1000$ is a mistake. No one was asking for a fixed f2.8, just take a good look at whats going on over at Fuji and m43 and you’ll understand the frustration.
Exciting news! I would really like to own and use a Zeiss E 16-70 lens.
Lame, f4 sucks big time, I can’t believe I’ve been waiting for all this time and they release this.
Strap on the Zeiss so you can pay a bucket of cash as well, no stabilization but you get “Zeiss colors”.
Maybe in some blessed day Sigma will release their 16-35 f1.8, no make that 2.8 and I’d still be happy.
Really if you want more range get something dedicated, who needs 16-70?
Could have been: 24-70 / 16-50 / or even 16-35 as Sigma, still good enough as a walk around, and if you really needed extra reach just get 50-200 😐
I can agree that 16-35/2.8 G was much more interesting then 16-70/4 Zeiss, but not for Sony and not for the market. So let it be. Whith 55-150 G it is much better situation then nothing.
Hm.
Why would 16-35/2.8 be more interesting than 16-70/4.
Please don’t tell me anything else than a comparison of 2x against 4x Zoom is the reason (IQ wise).
If you just jump onto the lens-speed-train than please stop arguing about IQ…
No, it is not only about 2.8 itself. It is about possible combination f2.8 + OSS. It is about maximum resolution on f4-5.6 like in case Touit 12/2.8. Tt’s about possibility to make much better optic with short diapason like in case of Sigma 18-35. It’s about possibility to make it reletivly small. It’s about that combination of Touit 12/2.8, G-zoom 16-35/2.8 OSS, existed 35, 50 and rumored 85/1.8 OSS, if such a thing was possible, was totally the best crop optic combination in the market.
If you don’t understand what is more interesting of having f2.8 in comparison of f4 (without OSS).. we can’t help you !
He is right in one thing. 2.8 just for 2.8 and a little better AF beacause of that is not the point. You need to sacrafice some thing for it and he is asking what? He can ask such a thing. It is not a stupid question.
Shouldn’t the brand name on the lens say “ZEISS” instead of “Carl Zeiss”? They dropped the first part a while ago already.
Either the picture is pretty outdated, or fake.
Well – I should have read the image description more carefully.
I like the range and if it´s sharp and compact it´s a good succesor as travel lens to my SEL-18200 and I can live with F4. The SAL-1680Z is also a great not so fast travel lens for A-Mount. From F3.5-4.5 from SAL1680 to constant F4 and 10mm less at the longer end it´s not such a big dealbreaker for me. SEL-1018F4 + SEL-1670F4 + nice fast prime like SEL-50F18 or SEL-35F18 it´s a nice travel selection and a perfect match for a compact NEX System.
How can it be so slow without OSS
It’s just impossible to use it over 50mm !! And more over in low light condition !!
Only shaking pictures …..
Hope the G high quality lens which is in the roadmap since 2011 will come one day !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
16-70 f4.0 zoom! Please, please please be true. I shoot a NEX7 in a Nauticam housing with the stock 18-55mm zoom using a port that allows the use of the wide end and a swing mount wet close up lens for super-macro. The problem is the kit lens is not all that sharp (no match for the N7 25MP sensor) and the 55mm is rather short for magnification and working distance with macro when using an Aquatica +10 close up wet diopter. An f4 will assure it being small and likely to fit the Nauticam mini port system ( possibly even work with Port 72 & extension) and give us that extra 15mm for longer reach and higher magnification. If the price range is any indication of the sharpness, it will blow away the stock 18-55mm. UW NEX users have been waiting for this lens forever. I return to the Philippines to dive in December. Forget the 55mm upcoming Zeiss macro, this lens will offer much more single dive versatility with 16mm for some wide angle seascape shots and super-macro with wet diopters at the long need. Hopefully, it’ll have fairly close focusing capabilities like the kit 18-55. Let this lens be real and put me on the waiting list, even at $1000+ 🙂